426 JONES v. STOCKETT.

and prayed the direction of the court as to the mode of executing
the trust—whence it was clear, that no investment could be made
until directed by the court; and, as in that interval the trustees
could not be charged with interest, no profits, to which alone Jones
and wife were entitled, could have been derived from the $7,000.
But Jones and wife had themselves complained, that to suffer the
legacy to remain in the hands of the trustees would put at great
hazard the principal sum; and consequently, the interest thereon;
indeed, it was obvious, that the entire value of their interest in the
sum of $7,000, depended altogether upon its being immediately
placed in safety; and, as soon thereafter as it might be judiciously
done, profitably invested. It therefore clearly followed, that al-
though Jones and wife had not, in so many words, prayed, that the
legacy of $7,000 should be brought into court; that nevertheless, it
was the necessary result of the actual complaint and prayer of their
bill, and most emphatically so after they had been informed by the
answer of Stockett, that the trustees declined to execute their trust
without the direction and indemnity of the court; for then the
bringing of the money into court was the most direct and suitable
answer which could have been given to their complaint; and the
best step which could have been taken in their behalf, as prepara-
tory to that investment for which they especially prayed. But it
would seem from their answer, and the petition of the trustees,
filed on the 20th of October, 1828, that they had had other ob-
jects in view; and that they had been thwarted in their expecta-
tions by the order of the 21st of September, 1825.

The trustee Stockett, in his report in answer to the order of the
20th of January, 1826, seems to have misunderstood the Chan-
cellor; and to have formed an inadequate notion of his own situa-
tion. If by an interest in the matter, he means a pecuniary bene-
fit, it is certain, that he not only has no interest adverse to that of
Jones and wife, but none whatever in opposition to any one else.
But, as trustee he holds an important office; and he has duties to
perform which have a direct bearing as well upon the interests of
Jones and wife as upon all others who may take in remainder after
them. And consequently, when he comes, or is brought here, in
respect of that office and those duties, although he may with pro-
priety claim the direction and indemnity of the court, he cannot
be justified in simply casting the whole matter before it, and leav-
ing it to act blindly without information, or upon mere presump-
tions. He is one of the fiduciaries of this property, chosen by